I don’t think the details matter much, it is always the same: the left is bullying anyone even slightly to the right of them with absolutely outrageous ideas and the right is bending over backward to find an acceptable compromise just to avoid further abuse and name-calling.

We know that, this is how the left works. Relentless aggression until the opponents give them something to stop them at which point they take a break to consolidate their position. This is the story of the past one hundred years.

This debate, like most of the others is not about gender identity and accommodation, it is not about tolerance and understanding, it is about hammering in the message that they, the progressive, social minded smart and moral people of the political left are, could and should be the only custodians of the definition of social morality.

Notice the sign in the background of the picture in the article above. It says “STOP using our children in the politics of division.” A telling sign. The left knows how to use division to its advantage while the right cannot even draw a line. We could debate the reasons for that endlessly, but the fact that the left is more successful advancing its cultural agenda is undeniable.

The problem with this debate is that one side is constantly on the defense, they don’t know how to get on the offensive because the debate is always framed by the left, and it is framed in moral terms making opposition to it by definition ‘immoral’.

The answer to this problem, as to a whole lot of others is extremely simple: school vouchers.
All parents should be allowed to send their children to whatever school they see as best suited for their needs. Time will tell which ones produce the best results based on whatever criteria we choose to evaluate them on.
The freedom to choose, the ending of the state’s monopoly on education is the solution to not only this but a number of other problems as well.
It would stop the division; it would accommodate schools with not only different approaches to teaching, but also to social sensitivities of any kind.
It could in fact create a vibrant market reflecting the multicultural nature of Canadian society. That would be true multiculturalism.

It would allow for schools with different approaches to security, ethnic, gender and religious differences.

Anything that is good about the free market would benefit a system of free education. An unconditional voucher system would revitalize Canadian education system while it would quite likely make it cheaper as well.

There is no reasonable argument against it. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of vested interest in the status quo. Teachers’ unions and socialists of all colours will attack the idea vehemently, just as they always did in the past. The public school system with its entrenched army of neo-communist indoctrinators is one of the foundations, the strongest bastillion of the political left. All communists throughout history understood the importance of indoctrination from an early age. They have to get them while their minds are pliable. A new man has to be created before a new society can be born.

They also know from past experience that their ideas cannot successfully compete in a free market, which is why they hang on to the political approach, using the heavy hand of the state to get their ways. The left is aggressive, because that is the only way for them to win. If there is a free market, all their grand schemes of re-education, social transformation and creating a new kind of man will wither or simply find their insignificant niche.

The game is obvious. The motivation, the political goals are not secret.The ideas promoted by the political left can only survive in a coercive system which is why they cannot let in competition.

Any situation like this new VSB rule book could and should be used to promote the idea of a truly free education system based on school vouchers.
There are several countries around the world with a system more free from politics than ours. Sweden, the land of European socialism has a very successful voucher system.
Why it is then that in Canada even conservative media treats the idea as taboo?

My best guess is that the idea that the state should run our education system is so entrenched that questioning it is not possible in polite society and conservative media is desperately trying to get accepted into polite society.

But then we have to ask: how can we possibly hope to win the culture war if we unconditionally surrender on its most important battleground? How can we hope to win with a strategy of appeasement, retreat and surrender?

The issues could be anything, but in this particular case the school system is used as a battlefield in the gender identity wars. This one is especially difficult to win without balls.

__________________________________________________________
Whether you like this or not, you should rate it. If you like it, follow the blog. If you really like it, share it and promote it. If you comment on it, please do it here, note (only) on Facebook or other social sites.

Post navigation

3 replies on “Gender(less) politics”

Could you elaborate on the Sweden’s school voucher system? I think it’s not only about the particular school choice, the official curriculums, but also about the teachers being able to express their opinions freely. Having a variety of schools offering ways of teaching likely would be good.

I am planning to write about this more in the future as I consider it extremely important.
There is quite a bit of information out about it,
Here is a study from FCPP http://www.fcpp.org/files/9/FB034Swedish%20school%20vouchers.pdf
The Swedish system, like any other is still limited by many rules, But even as a limited experiment, it is a great success.

Meta

The dialog didn’t, doesn’t and won’t die peacefully. Yes, it is still kicking, it is still getting up to feed on the brain of whatever is still alive. The dialog is zombified. The censorship, the lawfare, the protests, the riots, the shouting down of speakers, and the firing of those who get out of line […]

In my last post I vented my frustration with the sorry state of the left-right dialog. I described the problem, but we are still left with a set of questions: What is the basis of the differences? What makes them so predictable? What stands in the way of productive communication? Political ideology There could be […]

The title of this post is not a mistake. Even though it is ‘the’ autopsy of some dialogs, I would not share it with you if they were not such perfect examples of what is going on in ‘THE’ dialog between the left and the right. The dialog at this point is pretty much dead, […]

I was observing yet another strange discussion conducted seriously on serious subjects by serious people. Serious philosophical arguments based on painfully obvious fallacies: Truth can (and should) be absolute Certain moral principles are universal The most fundamental human rights are “natural” Every one of the above statements is wrong. Truth cannot be absolute and it […]

About two months ago I received a forward from a friend with the subject: “Science needs your voice.” Of course it was baloney. They didn’t need my voice, they were asking for my money. The implied assumption is that their voice is my voice, and what science needs is their political advocacy. Both assumptions are […]